 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Schadow wrote: |
| Quote: | | "Our newspapers, for the most part, present only the caricatures of disaffected minds. Indeed, the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. |
Be glad you're not here today, Tom. |
Nice contribution Schadow, as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
In addition to the leakers, I want to see James Risen and Eric Lichtblau face charges for espionage. Also Bill Keller, Exec Editor at NYT who reviewed and approved publication of information aiding and abetting the terrorists!!
On the NSA leaks, Scott Johnson, also a contributor at Powerline, makes the case for their culpability in a great article in the Weekly Standard yesterday. Analysis and comparison to the Pentagon Papers case before the Supreme Court in 1971. The difference being that the Pentagon Papers case had the government seeking an injunction to prevent the NYT from publishing. Most of the Justices were against the injunction (per 1st Amendment-prior restraint- i.e.you can not restrict the press prior to publication) BUT said if published, the NYT would be liable to Criminal prosecution on espionage law Section 798 or the Comint Statute-Title 18 U.S. Criminal Code S 2.
Bolding emphasis mine
| Quote: | IS THE New York Times a law unto itself? When the Times published its December 16 exposé of the secret National Security Agency electronic surveillance of al Qaeda-related communications, reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau noted that they had granted anonymity to the "nearly a dozen current and former officials" who were the sources for the story. Risen and Lichtblau stated that they had granted these sources anonymity "because of the classified nature of the program." Implicit in the Times's rationale is the recognition that leaks of such classified information are illegal.
That recognition is, of course, correct. Section 793 of the federal espionage law prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . " from disclosing it to persons not entitled to it. Section 798 of the espionage law prohibits the disclosure of classified communications intelligence activities to unauthorized persons "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States . . . " The violation of these statutes is a felony. Because their disclosures to the Times may fall within these statues, the "current and former government officials" referred to in the Risen/Lichtblau story sought the promise of confidentiality from the Times to protect their identity.
Assuming that these statutes apply to the leaks involved in the NSA story, has the Times itself violated the statutes and committed a crime? The answer is clearly affirmative. Section 798, for example, makes knowing and willful "publication" of the proscribed information a crime. Moreover, under the basic federal aiding and abetting statute--18 U.S.C. S 2--in willfully helping the leakers publish their disclosures, the Times is as culpable as they are, and punishable as a principal.
Which raises the question: Does the First Amendment afford the Times immunity from criminal liability for its conduct? In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971; otherwise known as the Pentagon Papers case), the Supreme Court held that it was presumptively unconstitutional for the government to restrain the publication of classified information. In separate opinions concurring with or dissenting from the order allowing the Times to continue publication of its Pentagon Papers stories, however, a majority of the justices contemplated that the Times could be held responsible for any violation of the law involved in publishing the stories.
Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed Section 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute.
Justice White noted, for example:
The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases [against the Times and the Washington Post.] Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint. . . .
It is thus clear that Congress has addressed itself to the problems of protecting the security of the country and the national defense from unauthorized disclosure of potentially damaging information. It has not, however, authorized the injunctive remedy against threatened publication. It has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions and their deterrent effect on the responsible as well as the irresponsible press. I am not, of course, saying that either of these newspapers has yet committed a crime or that either would commit a crime if it published all the material now in its possession. That matter must await resolution in the context of a criminal proceeding if one is instituted by the United States. In that event, the issue of guilt or innocence would be determined by procedures and standards quite different from those that have purported to govern these injunctive proceedings.
In a Boston Phoenix article, "The Gray Lady in shadow," civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate counts five Pentagon Papers justices in accord with the basic proposition that, while prior restraint is essentially prohibited, post-publication criminal responsibility is not. Silverglate observes that five of the nine justices (White, Stewart, Blackmun, Burger, and Harlan) would have approved of criminal prosecution of the newspaper defendants in the Pentagon Papers case, even though a majority would not authorize a pre-publication injunction. That observation is clearly correct, but conservative. Justice Marshall's concurring opinion is also consistent with White's analysis. It is fair to conclude that the Times is not immune from criminal liability for violation of the federal espionage laws under the Pentagon Papers case.
WHILE THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE is still good law, it is not the last word. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Court held that the First Amendment protected the publication of lawfully obtained information that was itself obtained illegally. The Court held that federal law making it a crime to intercept and disseminate telephone conversations cannot constitutionally be applied to the media when they report on matters of public concern.
Does Bartnicki suggest that the Times is constitutionally immune from prosecution under the espionage laws? The Court's fundamental factual predicates in Bartnicki were that the media defendants played no part in the underlying illegal conduct and that their access to the information was obtained lawfully. In the case of the NSA leaks, however, the disclosures to the Times were themselves illegal; it is the fact that the Times is not entitled or authorized to receive information provided to it regarding the NSA surveillance program that makes disclosures to the Times illegal under sections 793 and 798. Because Bartnicki is readily distinguishable from the facts involved in the Times's disclosure of the NSA surveillance program, it appears that the Times is not constitutionally immune from criminal responsibility for its conduct.
SO WHAT WAS the Times thinking when it published the Risen/Lichtblau story? Times executive editor Bill Keller purports to have satisfied himself that the publication of the story did "not expose any technical intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record." In his December 17 radio address, however, President Bush flatly asserted that publication of the story "damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." It is doubtful that even Keller believes that he is in a better position than the president to judge the consequences of the publication of the story. Earlier this month, Time's Joe Klein reported:
It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.
There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them--but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.
In his autobiography Radical Son, former Ramparts editor David Horowitz recounts an incident involving the magazine's 1972 receipt of a draft article by a pseudonymous National Security Agency employee. Horowitz characterizes his involvement in the publication of the article in Ramparts as "the most shameful or humiliating thing I ever did."
In the article, the NSA employee revealed that the agency had cracked the Soviet intelligence code and could read Soviet electronic communications at will. Deliberating over whether publication of the article might subject the magazine editors to prosecution under the espionage laws, Horowitz consulted prominent Harvard law professor Charles Nesson. (Nesson denies recollection of the conversation recounted by Horowitz.) Nesson was then working as a member of Daniel Ellsberg's defense team in connection with the government's prosecution of Ellsberg for removing copies of the Pentagon Papers and turning them over to the Times--the incident underlying the Pentagon Papers case itself. Horowitz relates that Nesson advised him that publication of the article would violate the law. In addition to providing certain technical guidance, according to Horowitz, Nesson advised:
To make its case in a court of law, the government would have to establish that we had indeed damaged national security. To do so, it would be necessary to reveal more than the government might want the other side to know. In fact, the legal process would force more information to light than the government would want anybody to know. On balance, there was a good chance that we would not be prosecuted. I had just been given advice by a famous constitutional law professor on how to commit treason and get away with it.
One wonders if the Times relied on similar advice regarding its publication of the NSA surveillance story. |
Johnson included links to pertinent info. Check them out at:
Weekly Standard
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davman
Lieutenant
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 205
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I will gladly contribute to any legal fund to launch a class action suit against the Times on behalf of our troops. I would also like to see some effort to prosecute the individuals who are leaking information the them. The first amendment will not protect them from treason charges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davman
Lieutenant
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 205
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the address to send a letter to the editor of the NY Times if anyone else is interested in voicing thier opinion. Ours probably doesn't count with them because we are not as open minded and enlightened as them, but I wrote anyway!
[b]letters@nytimes.com[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's not an "either-or" situation here: there are two classes of wrong-doers involved in this: the paper(s) and reporters who published the story, and the leakers who provided the information in the first place.
But IMHO first priority should be given to identifying and punishing the leakers, and drying up these sources. If they are not stopped they will simply peddle their information to whatever BDS-slanting media outlet they can find that will run the story, including the foreign media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Powerline today publishes a copy of an email sent to the NYT by Lt. Tom Cotton in Iraq:
| Quote: | A word from Lt. Cotton
Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:
Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:
Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)
Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.
Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.
And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.
Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq |
Source
I hope Lt. Cotton is correct. Judge Napolitano on Fox today says "no way". In any case, I hope a grand jury is assigned this one so that Risen, Lichtblau and Keller can't avoid taking the press version of The Fifth when asked who blabbed.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whew!!!
Letter from Treasury Secretary John Snow to Bill Keller, really SLAMS the pompous b*****d!!!
| Quote: | Monday, June 26, 2006
Snow to Keller [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure.
Cont'd at: The Corner at NRO |
Hmmm. I'm thinking maybe Attorney General Gonzalez may be preparing to act. Snow's scathing letter to Keller is the opening salvo. Has Secretary Snow provided a Referral to Department of Justice for an investigation of the NYT? I certainly hope this is the case.
The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFI) is run by the Department of Treasury. I think the procedure would be that Treasury Secretary would send a Referral Letter to DOJ seeking an investigation and empaneling of a Grand Jury to hand down indictments. (just like in the Plame case).
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The War Against The War Against Terror continues with the New York Times leading the charge. Yet another leak and another exposure of classified information by the NYT on 25 June 2006 (emphasis mine):
| Quote: |
<snip>
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.
<snip> |
Closely held secret? Not.
Full story (Note, the link may not work since I'm a scurrilous spy, having once signed up for access to their stuff. If you don't hear from me again, it may be that the NYT's black helicopter has whisked me away.) 
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
It would seem that NY Times was for this type of tracking before they were against it.. or are they only against it when they aren't privy to the details..
New York Times Editorial
September 24, 2001 Monday
Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 30
Finances of Terror
| Quote: | <snips>
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists.
Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.
........
Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one. |
NY Times-abstract
Editorial no less...
NYT articles are not allowed to be posted in full. Then again, we could say it's in the public interest and post the whole darn thing...but the gist is here...has more about Osama & ' hawala' banks
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
This issue with the NYT needs to be kept in the forefront for as long as possible. If the story of what these sabateurs did is allowed to die with age then they will have gotten away with a treason. I want them prosecuted, their management incarcerated, the value of their business squashed and their stock to plummet. I also want the story leakers identified, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. The persons who leaked this information and those who published it should share adjoining prison cells. If it can be proven that even a single person lost his or her life as a result of this leak then the death penalty is not severe enough. With rights comes responsibility. The right to freedom of the press comes with the responsibility to protect those rights and not to endanger the lives and liberty of others in the process.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | | [quoting the NYT:] ..... If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one. |
This morning, Scott Johnson at PowerLine adds this footnote to the NYT's doublespeak:
| Quote: | | If America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States. |
Right on.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this a joke? A slap on the wrist for committing sabotage. What are the House leaders thinking?
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ohio Voter
PO2
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Another secret program revealed!! |
|
|
| dusty wrote: | Money tracking secret program is made public.
When is the Govt. going to get tough on this stuff. We can't keep letting these people leak this stuff with impunity. Or the papers to print it with no consequences to them either. Especially after they have been specifically asked not to print the story and they do anyway.
That NYT reporter ought to be made to reveal his source and if he won't he needs to just rot in jail.
Dusty |
Refresh my memory...Isn't the Ny Times owned by Sun Mun Moon [spelling?] or some foreign entity? What religion is a Moonie? Buddah or Muslim?
The way the NY Times acts on war secrets and against President Bush I think they could be overtely working FOR the enemy and we are just now seeing the proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | | Is this a joke? A slap on the wrist for committing sabotage. What are the House leaders thinking? |
They are thinking that congressional reps need to go on record as to their position on this issue. I don't perceive it as a limited response but only one of many avenues being pursued. More to come, I'm confident.
One thing fersure, when the dust settles on this thing, there better be some "sources" doing jail time or Congress will have abrogated its responsibility to the American citizenry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ohio Voter wrote
| Quote: | | Refresh my memory...Isn't the Ny Times owned by Sun Mun Moon [spelling?] or some foreign entity? What religion is a Moonie? Buddah or Muslim? |
It's the Washington Times, a very conservative paper, that is owned by Moon. I love that paper. For years I have had a subscription to their National Weekly Edition which is mailed to my home every week. Good reading from cover to cover. The fact that the Moonies own it doesn't affect the content at all. Who knows, maybe the Moonies are conservatives.
The NYTimes is owned by Pinch Sulzberger, an out-and-out Commie and America-Hater.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
